Patna High CourtC. REV./9/2019withdrawn

Sunita Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2021-10-27Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.9 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21605 of 2013 ====================================================== Sunita Mishra W/o Late Purshottam Kumar Mishra Resident of Balaram Township, Qtr No. 8/97, P.O. N.S. Nagar, Bharatpur, Dist.-Angul (Orissa) at present residing at Village Belauri, Via Guthani, Dist.-Siwan (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, East Central Zone, Jeevandeep building 6th. Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna 3.

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Cuttack Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Post Box No.36, Cuttack (Orissa) ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Vishal Sourabh Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocates For the Opposite Parties:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa Mr. Rajni Kant Singh Mr. Sameer Sawarn, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present review petition has been filed against the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21605 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through inadvertence, the petitioner's representations which had been filed before the concerned authority (Annexure-5 series) could not be brought to the notice of this Court. In that view of the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.9 of 2019 dt.27-10-2021 2/2 matter, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of her grievance by way of statutory remedy available in accordance with law. It is submitted that despite these representations being filed before the authority, no action is being taken and the representations are still pending.

4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that the grievance now sought to be raised constitutes a fresh cause of action and cannot be treated as a ground for review. As such, he seeks permission to withdraw the review petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition as and when the occasion may arise.

5. The review petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 01.11.2021 Transmission Date N.A.